I-Swifter: Improving chunked network coding for peer-to-peer content distribution

Network coding has been proposed as a promising approach for peer-to-peer content distribution in recent literature. Not only reducing the average download time, but also improving resilience to peer churn has been showed as the benefits brought by network coding. State-of-the-art network coding content distribution systems perform network coding within segments or chunks, in order to reduce computational overhead. In our previous work (Xu et al. 2008), we proposed to schedule segment requests at a local-rarest-first basic. Local-rarest-first segment scheduling, as we demonstrated, is superior to the random scheduling. In this paper, we make a further step towards improving chunked network coding content distribution systems. We propose a requests reducer that reduces the overhead in control traffic and an encoding vectors reducer that eliminates the transmission of encoding vectors. Our contributions are to save unnecessary requests from downstream peers, and to reduce encoding vectors payload when the upstream peer owns the complete requested segment. This paper presents a realistic implementation, named I-Swifter. And we also make a comparative study on various related implementations. Experimental results show that there is about 10–20% of encoding vectors can be saved in I-Swifter. Moreover, I-Swifter improves average and maximum download time, the server load as well.

[1]  Christos Gkantsidis,et al.  Anatomy of a P2P Content Distribution system with Network Coding , 2006, IPTPS.

[2]  Baochun Li,et al.  Parallelized Progressive Network Coding With Hardware Acceleration , 2007, 2007 Fifteenth IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[3]  Jeffrey Considine,et al.  Informed content delivery across adaptive overlay networks , 2002, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[4]  Baochun Li,et al.  How Practical is Network Coding? , 2006, 200614th IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[5]  Xin Wang,et al.  Swifter: Chunked Network Coding for Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[6]  B. Cohen,et al.  Incentives Build Robustness in Bit-Torrent , 2003 .

[7]  Venkata N. Padmanabhan,et al.  Analyzing and Improving a BitTorrent Networks Performance Mechanisms , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[8]  Emin Gün Sirer,et al.  AntFarm: Efficient Content Distribution with Managed Swarms , 2009, NSDI.

[9]  Rayadurgam Srikant,et al.  Modeling and performance analysis of BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer networks , 2004, SIGCOMM 2004.

[10]  R. Koetter,et al.  The benefits of coding over routing in a randomized setting , 2003, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, 2003. Proceedings..

[11]  Baochun Li,et al.  On the Resilience-Complexity Tradeoff of Network Coding in Dynamic P2P Networks , 2007, 2007 Fifteenth IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[12]  Rudolf Ahlswede,et al.  Network information flow , 2000, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[13]  Shuo-Yen Robert Li,et al.  Linear network coding , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[14]  Johan A. Pouwelse,et al.  The Bittorrent P2P File-Sharing System: Measurements and Analysis , 2005, IPTPS.

[15]  Hao Ma,et al.  Crawling the eDonkey Network , 2006, 2006 Fifth International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing Workshops.